Posted on 10/05/2005 10:18:22 AM PDT by Big Steve
I have some things in here that need to be said. I have heard so many nay-sayers keep saying negative things about President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It has been said that this is a blown opportunity or a cowardly way out. Having nominated someone without any judicial experience may not be always a wise choice, but it is not always a bad choice, either. Remember, William Rehnquist was in Nixon's Justice Department when he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and he eventually turned out to be one of the greatest Chief Justices in United States history, especially in the eyes of conservatives. He had no judicial experience, either.
A lot of conservatives have felt betrayed by Bush time and time again. I am a big fan of Bush, but I felt he has let us down on failing to control spending and controlling our borders. If he can rectify these two things, he will be among the greatest Presidents in history. He wants more tax cuts and to have them made permanent. He has continued to support our military in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. He has never wavered on these two areas. Finally, he has appointed men and women who share the same judicial philosophy he has to the courts. He has not let us down yet in this aspect, and I don't think all of us conservatives should throw him or Ms. Miers to the wolves just yet. Let's wait and see what kinds of decisions she will make when and if she's confirmed. On issues like abortion, if makes a ruling against the conservatives, then those conservatives who opposed will have been right. But if she rules on our side, then those who opposed her will owe her and President Bush an engraved apology.
There are a couple of big names who have grave reservations about Ms. Miers. Rush Limbaugh, who in my opinion has been the strongest voice for conservatism in this country for nearly two decades, has had grave reservations about Ms. Miers because of a lack of a paper trail. One good thing I see of her lack of paper trail is that the liberals can't go all out on her right away. Eventually, they will once the confirmation hearings come up, but make them do a little more work on knowing more about her before opposing her because she's a Bush crony. If I had one thing to say to Rush on this matter, I would say, "Rush, one area Bush has not let us down on is his selection of judges. Don't throw in the towel, yet. You can still be cautious, but don't throw in the towel. Continue to be the optimist you always taught your listeners to be. I predict the President will come through again." Another one with grave reservations about Miers is Ann Coulter. Ann, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful women around and is a strong legal scholar. We are lucky to have her on our side. But her criticisms of Miers and John Roberts as not being conservative enough have been really troubling. Lately, she sounds more like a reactionary and not wanting to give the President the benefit of the doubt. In her mind, any selection short of a Janice Rogers-Brown selection is a disappointment. I would say to her, "Ann, I admire what you believe in, but lower your rhetoric a little because it doesn't help our cause. Do continue your cautious approach, but don't flat out oppose a nominee like Ms. Miers until we know more about her. After all, Rehnquist was never a judge and look how he turned out." As much as I would like a Janice Rogers-Brown or a Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, they were never under serious consideration. After all, they were just confirmed to their positions 2-3 months ago. Give them a year or two on the bench like John Roberts, and when the next vacancy comes up, float their names again.
Let's all work together and pray we know more about this nominee before we discard her. After all, we don't know Bush's mind; and I don't want to call this man's bluff in a poker game. When his back is to the wall is when he's at his best. Only time will tell if we are right or wrong about this nominee. I am confident we will be pleasantly surprised. Thank you for reading what I had to say.
Let's hope that the committee actually manages to use their time asking questions instead of pontificating on their personal beliefs and pet legislation. That's where my pressure is going to be. It's the committees responsibility to find out whether or not she will be a good choice, not to use their time grandstanding. This time I want them to ask 3 or 4 questions with their time.
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't make it right. We can change the complexion of the court, but your comments don't help in that way. If Bush can trust this woman, give her a chance. If she is a disappointment, then you can say, "See, I told you so." If she is a blessing, then you will owe her and the President an engraved apology. Stevens will retire soon, and Ginsberg is not in the best of health, so Bush may have as many as four appointees to the SC, so stop being a pessimist.
Saying I told you so doesn't cut it, we can do NOTHING if we don't approve.
Seems some of you are into appeasing the Dems, I say it is time to fight, we have the fire power to do it now.
Let them filibuster and we'll go nuclear.
You are right. I'm one of the dubious-on-Miers crowd. The president has made it so that conservatives, in the end, have no choice but to support her. But it annoys me big-time that he continues the R tradition of loving the conservatives on election day and not giving a d$$m any other time. It annoys me that he pulled this stunt with almost no regard to how difficult it is going to make it for us local pols to get out the vote in 2006. It annoys me he has put our Senate majority at risk by demoralizing the base.
I am already seeing the fallout from this at the local level. It's going to be a lot harder to get conservative volunteers for 2006 than it was two years ago. Of that, I'm certain. The extent of the problem is not yet clear.
I can talk myself blue in the face to some of our stalwarts. But they still don't like the direction the Pres has taken things and at this point, they are sitting things out--Miers was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Miers may turn out fine. She may not. But Bush has a big-time problem with his base for which noone other than W is responsible. He needs to pay a lot of attention to fixing it--NOW. Otherwise, he's going to have a rat Senate for the last two years of his term.
The only way he learns about the problem is if we express our opinion vocally and loudly. I will be dragged kicking and sreaming to supporting her. And I will continue to kick and scream until W stops ignoring the people that elected him. So in the terms of the loyalists here, I'm going to be a 'whiny crybaby' who 'doesn't understand strategery.'
But don't blame me. Blame W. He's the one that has backed conservatives into the corner we are in and left loud complaining, sitting out 2006, or blind loyalty, as our only choices. The loyalty stuff is wearing thin. The other choices suck; but here we are and W brought is to this point.
Frankly, I'm probably not smart enuf to understand strategery like the good FREEPERS do; 'cause to this old local pol, all I can see is a piss-poor political decision regardless how the confirmation comes out and regardless what kind of judge she turns out to be. You dance with the one that brung you; and W is eyeing the babe across the room and thinking that his conservative date is a little to frumpy for his tastes these days.
I am not into appeasing anybody. The dirty little secret is, no matter how conservative or not-so-conservative nominee is, the Dems will launch a character assassination. They need to raise money. Stop being pessimistic, and start being optimisitic about the choice Bush has made.
In my experience, people are generally hurt less by people with solid common sense and rational thought, than they are by life time experts.
If you would read my first reply you would know I am optimistic but I want to be sure.
Again, let the Dems do as they wish, who cares? We will beat them as we have the votes.
I like Bush as well as you probably but I want someone whom I know has conservative values.
I think it is from a position of weakness, not the weakness of the President personally, but the weakness in support from Senate Republicans. We are much closer to the next election now, and because the GOP took a few hits in the last few weeks, President Bush must rebuild momentum and his position by getting a few more wins under his belt.
Rita was the first, Roberts was the second. The two together were not enough to overcome the strength deficit yet. Miers will be the next win...and then things will look better.
The President must win with the hand he has...not the hand he wished he had. The Supreme Court, imo, is way too important a hand to bluff, which sending up a likely to be filibuster nominee would be. He needs someone in there now to deal with critical upcoming cases, so time is of the essence. So the President has chosen to win less...but win nonetheless.
I can't see how that does our advancement wrong.
I like both Roberts and Miers. From what I've about Miers, nothing should disqualify her and I see a lot which seems advantageous. Bush hits it out of the park again as far as I'm concerned...so far anyway.
Not necessarily.
I was a Demoncrat in my youth. Much of what the Demoncrats supported seemed harmless enough and appeared to be programs that we could afford.
When the Demoncrats decided to disarm the people, the alarm bells started ringing and haven't quit yet.
The programs that I thought were "harmless" have, in fact, enabled the Demoncrats to enslave an entire generation of minorities and the under-educated. These people now vote Demoncrat out of a sense of self-preservation. Demoncrat supported entitlement programs are absolutely NOT harmless.
Further, my mistaken notion that we could "afford" such programs is best exemplified by Social Security. Without violating "promises" already made or raising taxes beyond their present ruinous rates, Social Security will fall into bankruptcy, probably in my lifetime.
The realization that liberalism is neither "harmless" nor can it be "afforded" and that liberals wish to use their ill-gotten power to disarm me, makes me FAR, FAR, from moderate in my present political views.
I have taken a few days to reflect upon Bush's nomination:
While initially I was disappointed because she wasn't who WE thought should be on the short list for SCOTUS, I have decided that what is going on right now on the conservative side is quite disturbing and quite frankly, disgusting in some quarters. After Ann Coulter called her Bush's legal secretary, I genuinely started to feel sorry for her. No one deserves this absolute sliming by conservative "members of the team." She has helped vet and pick Bush's nominees to the court. All this reactionary emotion is what the Democrats are best at. Why does our side have to do this, too?
I understand the apprehension. The conservatives have been burnt before! We wanted to finish the Dems off for good this time! Let the Dem blood flow on the floor of the Senate! But the fight is not here or now. If HM is defeated and it is because conservatives not only mocked her service but also gave cover to the Dems to oppose her, how will conservatives feel when it turns out she may have been an EXCELLENT pick?
The woman needs to be given a chance. She deserves a chance. Bush nominated her because he thinks she would be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He has known her for years and is probably in the best position to know her core beliefs and interpretation of things.
The most reasonable, rational, logical thing to do is to give her a chance. Anything less is self-destructive and unbecoming of us conservatives.
W always has my support. The people who are against his pick are the ones I am second guessing, such as Coulter, she has just gone off the deep end.
I know it is early, but I am disturbed. She apparently has shifted gears several ways. She strikes me as often following politically expedient paths. Our desire to change the course of the court is too important and opportunities too rare to get another Souter. If Harry Reid likes and recommended her I'm REALLY scared!
Too late then if she turns out like Souter. The appointment is for life. That could mean 30 YEARS of bad rulings.
Check out this thread on HArriet Miers by a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497153/posts
Contrast this with his re-nominations of previously filibustered judges. Even if he had nominated one that would certainly go down, why could he not then nominate someone equally as conservative and controversial, forcing the Democrats to either appear increasingly shrill and obstructionist or confirm someone they despise? Remember, Scalia got onto the Court because the Democrats were forced to concentrate their hysteria upon the elevation of Rehnquist. Time may have not permitted that here, but I think Bush could have easily nominated someone like Luttig or Brown at the same time he nominated Roberts for Chief Justice. Alternatively, he could have nominated Scalia for Chief Justice, Roberts for O'Connor's slot, and a third to replace Scalia.
The President did not need to "win with the hand he had." That is a tacit admission the Democrats are still in charge of the judiciary and the nomination process. They will only be emboldened to continue using such parliamentary tactics in the future, no doubt expanding them to other nominations besides the courts. There were far more ways he cold have played it that would have totally discombobulated the Dems and gotten a very controversial nominee through at the same time.
Do not forget that part of the hand the President was dealt came from the voters who have worked long and hard to secure Republican majorities in Congress. It appears the President, like Senate Republicans, wants to rely on the fear of Democrats regaining majorities to keep those votes. I think he far better serves the party by demonstrating he will keep sending up controversial nominees until the Democrats back down than simply giving up for the sake of a confirmation. He did it before with some success and there was really no reason not to do it this time.
We didn't know Scalia WAS Scalia and we didn't know Thomas WAS Thomas until well after they were seated. All the "duds" Kennedy, Souter, etc, were vetted beforehand (Kennedy was vetted by the great Mark Levin!) and approved for nomination. I can guarantee that all were considered high caliber.
In the fullness of time, some turned into wimpy elitists. By sheer luck, Scalia and Thomas were not among them.
Face it. The only judge on that court whose decisions in all cases could be pre-determined for eternity is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Council for the ACLU. Everyone else is a crap shoot.
Actually, its amazing to see the conservatives all using the same talking points. I hate that when the libs do it and I'm not too crazy about it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.